Society/Culture Marriage equality debate - Part 1

[camsmith]

How is gay marriage a moral issue? There's nothing immoral about that, although it goes some way to explaining your point of view.

Ok perhaps not moral, but a personal view.

Do I need to change my sig to, 'I'M FINE WITH GAY MARRIAGE' so you all finally understand that it's not gay marriage that I have an issue with here???

 

[CM86]

Ok perhaps not moral, but a personal view.

Do I need to change my sig to, 'I'M FINE WITH GAY MARRIAGE' so you all finally understand that it's not gay marriage that I have an issue with here???

I don't understand your problem then.

You are concerned that homosexuals are now allowed to marry, and it wasn't voted on by the American public?

With everything else going on, why has this one caught your ire?

 

[camsmith]

I don't understand your problem then.

You are concerned that homosexuals are now allowed to marry, and it wasn't voted on by the American public?

With everything else going on, why has this one caught your ire?

Yes I think the States that banned same-sex marriage should be able to exercise their right to ban it. People get what they vote for and clearly they don't want gay marriage in those States.

It hasn't really caught my ire, obviously its prevalent in the news at the moment. I do hope if Australia does allow same-sex marriage that it's done through either parliament or a plebiscite. Not high court judges (which I believe has to be the case anyway).

 

[CM86]

Yes I think the States that banned same-sex marriage should be able to exercise their right to ban it. People get what they vote for and clearly they don't want gay marriage in those States.

It hasn't really caught my ire, obviously its prevalent in the news at the moment. I do hope if Australia does allow same-sex marriage that it's done through either parliament or a plebiscite. Not high court judges (which I believe has to be the case anyway).

So what did you think about the ACT having same sex marriage then having it removed?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Why don't you reply to the quote I supplied, of one of the Justices. He is clearly worried about the democratic implications of this ruling.

You quoted Scalia.

The judicial branch is not completely divorced from elective democracy. It is President's, afterall, who select nominees and a committee of Congress people who then send it to the Senate.

If it were up the will of the majority in Southern states, blacks may still be in officially segregated schools, miscegenation laws may still be in place, and women may not have control of their bodies.

Your appeal to States Rights is advocacy for racism and apartheid.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Yes I think the States that banned same-sex marriage should be able to exercise their right to ban it. People get what they vote for and clearly they don't want gay marriage in those States.

It hasn't really caught my ire, obviously its prevalent in the news at the moment. I do hope if Australia does allow same-sex marriage that it's done through either parliament or a plebiscite. Not high court judges (which I believe has to be the case anyway).

Much of the American political apparatus is designed to thwart the will of the majority. Restriction of the franchise, electoral college, undemocratic election of the Senate prior to the 1910s etc etc.

Pretending that the US is set up as a direct democracy is wrong.

Most of your type only blow the clarion call of states rights when you want blacks kept in place.

 

[Lebbo73]

You quoted Scalia.

The judicial branch is not completely divorced from elective democracy. It is President's, afterall, who select nominees and a committee of Congress people who then send it to the Senate.

If it were up the will of the majority in Southern states, blacks may still be in officially segregated schools, miscegenation laws may still be in place, and women may not have control of their bodies.

Your appeal to States Rights is advocacy for racism and apartheid.

At least millions of unborn babies wouldn't of been murdered!

 

[cartwright]

At least millions of unborn babies wouldn't of been murdered!

oh, shut the * up

 

[Fire]

Crap, I'd been taking lebbo as genuine.

Fell for that one, how embarrassing for me. Well played sir.

 

[Lebbo73]

oh, shut the **** up

You shut the * up

 

[Catfish Alley]

Haha. That's how I imagine Question Time.

 

[Gough]

Haha. That's how I imagine Question Time.

I thought it a touch more cerebral, than the average Question Time exchange. .

 

[telsor]

While I agree with the result, I'm not thrilled at the courts ruling to make such a change due to the principle involved.

Significant social changes should be made by the people and/or their elected officials (as was happening with many states passing such laws).

 

[Chief]

It's a nice soundbite for year 9 students but it's a false dichotomy. The USA is both a democracy and a republic. It's not a direct democracy like ancient Athens but like any other large democratic country, it has elections for representatives who make the law, and appointed judiciary who interpret that law. A radical change to the rules of marriage should be decided by elected representatives, or like Ireland did, by plebiscite. This decision by a five to four verdict of appointed officials overrides the will of two thirds of the states.

The courts interpret the law, yes. But the High Court (Or the Supreme Court in the US) decides on things like constitutional validity.

Complaining about a high court interpreting a law in such a way that makes it no longer a law is not logical.

There is legislated law from elected representatives and laws made by judges through courts. The High Court can throw out laws all together if they are unconstitutional. That is the way the system is supposed to work. That is a strength of the system.

If you don't like that, go live in a dictatorship.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

FWIW im fine with gay marriage

Yes I think the States that banned same-sex marriage should be able to exercise their right to ban it.

One of these statements is bullshit.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

While I pretend to agree with the result, I'm not thrilled at the courts ruling to make such a change due to the principle involved.

Significant social changes I don't like should be made by the people and/or their elected officials (as was happening with many states passing such laws) so they're stalled as long as possible.

Edited your post with some corrections.

 

[telsor]

Edited your post with some corrections.

If you read back through the thread, I've been pretty clear on favouring marriage equality.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Is marriage a human right? I tend not to think so. And hence I think it should be a state issue as everything else to do with marriage is.

even if you think that it doesn't change the ruling, the ruling was two parts not just the right for someone to get married but due process. Part of due process means that no legislation can discriminate against an individual.

you brought up relo's and marriage in another post. But you miss the point, Incest is crime, in the US marriage has with it an expectation of sexual relations occurring between the couple. In fact refusal to engage in sexual activity of any kind can be grounds for divorce in many states. Hence it becomes a completely different argument. Because if the state grants a marriage licence to siblings it questions the validity of those incest laws and several arguments can be brought.

Marriage between siblings is banned because of incest laws. (or at least that is what would be argued) in this case due process is afforded these couples in relation to marriage. Its that it affects existing laws. Now whether your for or against brothers sisters having a shag on a sunday afternoon its another matter entirely, the fact is as long as you can't * a member of your family you can't marry them, same as you can't * and hence can't marry dogs and 12 years olds.

Gays however, sodomy is no longer on the books, there is no question about homosexual relations being legal in US. And this leads us to due process, gays are committing no crime, by shagging each other, no crime by living together, no crime by pooling there wealth together, no crime by raising kids together. this is the modern definition of marriage.

and this is where the due process comes into play. The State must afford the same due process to everyone, everyone must be bound with the same rules. and this applies with all laws right across the park. including marriage, If homosexuality was illegal you would have a point. but you don't the US was founded on individual rights as well as state rights, one of the restrictions on the state is due process. Unless the state can provide a valid LEGAL reason why they need to prevent gays specifically from tying the knot you're infringing on that due process.

Pedo's, sistershaggers and horserooters are all s**t out of luck because their relationships are seen as criminal.

 

[CM86]

You shut the **** up

Reported for abuse.

 

[telsor]

One of these statements is bullshit.

Why?

You can feel a certain way about something, but still accept that others feel otherwise.

For example, I disagree with abortion, but at the same time feel that my 'right' to hold a position on that shouldn't override other people's rights to their own opinions so am comfortable with other people making their own choices on this issue.

also, for the comment of mine you paraphrased incorrectly before, I support marriage equality, but that doesn't mean I support judicial activism.

I hold a number of views on a great many issues. Sometimes they conflict and I have to weigh them up and decide between them in each specific case. I would like to think all people do similarly.

 

[Pie eyed]

I thinks it's going to be interesting and entertaining watching Abbott try and make winding back Howard's illegalization of same sex marriage look like his idea.

At least it may distract from his infantile suggestion the ABC is supposed to be "on his side" or that it should be "state" media.
Mental midget.

 

[peternorth]

first time caller, no time listener.

heard interview with pauline hanson on this debate. her view

- marriage should be between man and woman
- somebody think of the children, need father and mother
- has a lot of gay friends, many of them dont want to get married

im still no wiser about this discussion

 

[telsor]

I thinks it's going to be interesting and entertaining watching Abbott try and make winding back Howard's illegalization of same sex marriage look like his idea.

At least it may distract from his infantile suggestion the ABC is supposed to be "on his side" or that it should be "state" media.
Mental midget.

There is a massive difference between 'on his side' and 'venomously against his side'.

 

[Lester Burnham]

That's what you say should happen, the Supreme Court of the U.S. disagrees.

Why have "unelected" judges been OK to make rulings on constitutional law until the specific point where you disagree. You can't pick and choose the way you want government to function based on the politics you have.

If unelected judges shouldn't make rulings on this the be consistent and advocate the abolition of the judiciary. Like Bobby Jindal has.

Four of the members of the Supreme Court dissented from the decision on the basis that the Supreme Court does not have the authority under the constitution to make law.

Justice Roberts

But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.​

..

The majority purports to identify four “principles and traditions” in this Court’s due process precedents that support a fundamental right for same-sex couples to marry. Ante, at 12. In reality, however, the majority’s approach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the unprincipled tradition of judicial policymaking that characterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45. Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.​

I have not read the full decision but I did read Kennedy. He's basically making a pro-gay marriage argument, complete with sentimental accounts of the plaintiffs, then lending the constitution to justify his views. He really went for the Oscar with his final paragraph. Apparently unmarried people are "condemned to live in loneliness" lol. I've seen better pro-gay marriage arguments in this Bigfooty thread that this shite. There is no recognition that marriage is, and always has been, about a sexual relationship that forms the basis of a family. Also no mention that civil unions can provide "equal dignity in the eyes of the law" and embody "a love that may endure even past death".

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage . It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right​

Except it didn't happen, so too bad.

Obama spoke against gay marriage before he was elected then did a u-turn once he got into office. I suspect this issue is not yet over in the USA. Many blacks and hispanics would have voted for Obama just because he is "black", or many would not have bothered to vote at all. But there's a large religious contingent amongst those groups that might vote based on the gay marriage issue.

It must infuriate you that it is eventually coming to Australia. Left the UK, then came here, where will you run off to next?

Don't be a dick.

 

[Gough]

There've been split decisions come out of the Supreme Court since time immemorial. You're not the first to get the grumps with a decision, and you won't be the last, I'd invite you to cast you're critical eye over every single one of them, and give me your view on each of them, and how they act as examples of the will of the people being overridden.